IDEALIST organization CONCEPT

Written by Maciej Strzembosz

The current organization strategy is completely out. It's all over. The allegedly conservative organization and the allegedly liberal organization prosecute a very similar, mostly left-wing policy, and the only difference between them is the toxic conflict of chiefs and the attitude towards abortion. In campaigns, they say uncreated things about their opponents, and after taking their power they immediately do the same. The 2 chiefs come out of the same assumption, that in order to win elections we request bread and games, a social and a conflict that makes hatred impossible to transfer electorates. The power is erstwhile exercised by one, erstwhile by another, but at least they have a warrant that nothing threatening the dual will grow. For over 20 years, the prescription worked until it grew. No, not a fresh party, but a fresh generation.

If you look at the past of the past 35 years from a generation point of view, the top beneficiary of the fall of communism was the generation born between 1950 and 1965. This generation got incredible promotion opportunities, rapidly filled all possible vacant positions and considered it not an accident, but due gratification as unique. There were fewer peculiar ones, but almost all of them were welded to their stools. The next generation had been highly frustrated over the years, due to the fact that they had no specified fast promotions, and erstwhile they were better educated they understood perfectly that older colleagues were not unique, but highly selfish. 1 of the reasons for the popularity of political polarization was the fact that the common slaughter of the elite gave any chance of promotion in place of the overthrown. But inactive no wonder the 75-year-old editor-in-chief of the paper has been in office for 35 years or theatre directors after 80. In addition to the extension of the nomenclature in the 1990s, fresh elites were besides expropriated. Division RSW Press Book Movement, journalistic cooperatives, privatizations of failing plants, radio and tv concessions – all of this is right or incorrect or not in the hands of 1 generation. And no 1 saw anything incorrect with that.

Meanwhile, any time ago, I spoke to a classmate, a branch chief at an crucial hospital. She told me that even though she didn't want to, she was retiring, or else she'd blow up the band that she'd been building for years. Being a 17-year-old chief, she's already seen as individual who blocks promotion from younger. fewer people in my generation have thought about it.

Currently, the apogee of its capabilities is achieved by a generation that practically knows no another planet than the planet of free Poland. Even if they were born in the end of PRL, it was not a forming experience for them. They know languages, the world, they have no complexes, due to the fact that they feel that they are as good or better than their peers in another countries. Kaczyński's dispute with Tuski is for them a dispute between forest grandparents bound by obsessions from the past and not knowing that the next 10 years will decide about the future of Poland in dimensions which 70-year-olds do not completely understand. Kaczyński would like to make Poland, but in the form of a modernised open-air museum, Tusk assumes that the government administers what will happen, and having a program is just a set of troublesome promises that do nothing good, due to the fact that it is then accounted for. And both of them are terrified of democracy as evidenced by the completely anti-democratic structure of their organization and the deficiency of assurance in people with their own opinions, as well as the inability to usage the cognition of independent experts. independency is harmful and suspicious. Good expertise is the 1 written to justify the chief's conviction.

So the fresh generation is beginning to realize that it is time for its own representation. For a organization that deals primarily with Poland, not itself and another parties. The organization that leaves matters of conscience to conscience, supports the building of competences and creates a framework for their use, leaving freedom to choose activities and forms of action. He does not think that the state must control everything, but besides believes that the task of the state is to support Polish successes and to fill the competence deficits that halt our development. specified a organization – discussed here and there as a natural consequence of movement So for improvement – its own uprising would uncover how old-fashioned political life we live. Iwo Zaniewski pointed out that 20 years ago people did not want a substantive discussion, due to the fact that if they wanted it, politicians would have it. I feel like this fresh generation wants it. They are excited to build infrastructure, artificial intelligence, to grow Polish military potential, to invest in research, investments, the deficiency of Polish unicorns, i.e. the start of ups worth over $1 billion and akin problems. It seemed that the PO erstwhile defining itself as a prorozoic organization would start an active dialog with this environment and pull it into its orbit. But it's the exact opposite. The environment immediately became acquainted with its place in the series: Maciej Lask's appointment as a typical for the CPK, dismissals in the Łukaszewicz investigation Network and filling the positions with organization trims of the 3rd degree of freshness, dismissal of Prof. Piotr Sankowski, war with Polish creators led by the MKiDN on behalf of abroad corporations, resignation of many investments and hold of others. This environment is so disappointed that it will either make its own party, or what would be a misfortune for Poland will recognise that the lesser evil from their point of view is PiS.

It is at the same time a generation which any believe cannot be built a organization without large money and political transfers. Yes, it is not possible – rapidly and painlessly, but the choice that stands before this generation is: either they will immediately go to work and if they neglect they will lose 2 or 3 years, during which they will learn a lot about the country and about themselves, or lose the eternally best years of their lives, spending the next 10 to 15 years in a miserable Poland. It is known that neither Tusk nor Kaczyński are eternal. But corrupt mediocrity dominates them. So imagine Poland ruled by people like Błaszczak and Kierwiński, and if specified a nightmare does not break you out of marazmu, let us quit this sovereignty, due to the fact that seemingly we did not grow up to it.

What conditions must the lot meet Just for improvement to have a chance at success?

1. It must be built from the bottom. Without prejudging who will be its leader. The party, which at the time of its founding has the name of the leader in its name, is an aberration and calling for vengeance to the sky pathology. The organization charter must evidence that electoral lists are being built in districts and regions. In Germany, the Constitutional Court stated that building a letter by organization office is contrary to the principles of democracy, and thus unconstitutional. Before we get to the actual Constitutional Court in Poland, self-regulation is needed. Only specified a organization will be joined by fresh people, for whom the key to Poland's improvement is substantive promotions, not Lokalizian ones.
2. The organization must not tolerate any political transfers. The charter must state that no 1 who has belonged to another organization in the last 5 years may be a organization member. Yes, he can submit his accession as a candidate if he steps out of the current party, but his candidacy will not be considered until a year later. And 1 of the evaluation criteria will be what he did during this year for the general good. Current parliamentarians may not be admitted to the organization until 1 year after the end of this word or 1 year after the resignation of the word of office. The past of all parties called in the last 20 years shows that transfers do not aid anything, but only harm, due to the fact that they are transfers of people frustrated, toxic and incapable to break through in their own environment or contentious and convinced of their greatness, which nobody else appreciates. The harm to Bielan, Petru or Gierty parties is far greater than any profit. 1 of the slogans of the organization should be the rule: fresh party, fresh people.
3. The election of the authorities shall take place only after a programme legislature which shall be convened 1 year after the organization has been established. Until then, the organization is headed by a founding committee. So far, the party's programme has been decided by the leader, it's time for any organization to choose the leader to best implement its program.
4. Writing the program of the organization is tedious, but it does not require any money. There are many people in Poland frustrated with what is happening in areas where they are experts and for years formulating recommendations to repair the situation of local governments, defence industry, culture, health, education, etc. It's not besides hard to identify them. It is besides not hard to find people who will review their proposals. It requires work, but it does not require much money. Writing the program must besides be a way to build structures. Working teams should travel around the country through open meetings presenting concepts, but besides meetings with people applying for organization membership. These meetings should service to catch people willing to engage, but besides to destruct frustrations and toxic people. They should besides like people of importantly pre-retirement age and people who have had any professional success. However, the final word always belongs to local structures.
5. A fresh organization should draw up an ethical code prohibiting the usage of words specified as traitor, enemy, fraud, lunatic, etc. against political opponents. The Code of Ethics should besides emphasise the crucial importance of words specified as sorry, I was wrong, I don't know, ask a colleague.

Party representatives should besides not participate in debates that tolerate specified behaviour or go to programmes conducted by political officers pretending to be journalists. The first lower media vulnerability is simply a tiny price for changing standards. Besides, 1 of the biggest traps that wait for fresh parties is hundreds of media invitations that effort to make this organization a curiosity of the month. A smaller media vulnerability in the first period will only bring curiosity to the public and will focus attention on its own news channels.

1. Working teams meetings with sympathizers in the state should be broadcast online and their records and transcriptions suspended on the site.
2. The organization should consistently not participate in elections for which it is not ready. But it must besides give members a clear goal and parameters to be met in order to compete.
3. Party backing must be dispersed. possibly the Foundation or Association should be established to finance programme activities by crowdfunding and manufacture organisations, but the organization backing itself must be transparent and based on contributions from members and sympathizers. It is better to take over the first years than to become hostages of interest groups as in the case of, for example, dangerous POs and developers.

From the beginning, however, there must be a fund to be raised for elections so that the organization has an electoral run to join.

1. At the same time, the organization should have clear demands from the first day on the democratisation of political processes (e.g. the collection of signatures under the laws and referendums by mCitizen) and a draft improvement of the financing of political parties aimed at greater beginning of the system.
2. The main rule of the party's operation is the good and improvement of a community whose highest organisational form is the state. Each bill and initiative of its own or another parties should pass through a improvement test showing who it serves and who it harms. It will be essential to establish a think tank that deals with this and which will make ideas for action for the organization in the future. In the first period, cooperation with existing think tanks, specialised in circumstantial fields, would be desirable.

While it should be very careful to accept larger amounts of money per party, backing of think tank does not should be so restrictive. Ultimately, the consequence of the work of think tanks are reports and concepts that may or may not be implemented.

I'm not going to join a organization like this due to the fact that I'm not fit for any party, but I'm happy to vote for it.